Graphic Designers Have Always Loved Minimalism. But at What Cost?(eyeondesign.aiga.org)
eyeondesign.aiga.org
Graphic Designers Have Always Loved Minimalism. But at What Cost?
https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/graphic-designers-have-always-loved-minimalism-but-at-what-cost/
108 comments
> FAANG companies are now scrambling over each other to hire minorities
Citation needed
Citation needed
Design has become mass-produced at an internet scale. Minimalism was introduced to better deal with - vector design tools - visual stability across multiple sizes, including small/tiny smartphone app icons.
We are likely going to see a counter reaction. But this trend had lots of practical and technical reasons to exist - we needed very small icons and illustrations that would be readable even in small sizes, and we needed to produce more design using vector graphics tools.
The idea of blaming some company or another is easy thinking.
I work in the area and “flat” and “minimalism” are just ways to speed things up and make them more legible. This article just has an agenda.
“Design has always loved minimalism” isn’t even a true thing to say. There are plenty of designers particularly in the 90s who were maximalists - look at print design during this era, look at stuff from Paula Scher and look at any design mag from the 90s to see Photoshop insanity, distorted and cut up fonts. Lots of other eras had similar ideas - look at the 1950s illustrated magazine ads, the 1980s use of photography, Toulouse Latrec’s poster design.
But looking at magazine design in the 90s this was again a technical/practical design innovation - Photoshop and desktop publishing had become real alongside digital printing, so suddenly you had the opportunity to do anything and print anything. So the end result was an explosion in garish absurdity, some of it quite interesting.
We are likely going to see a counter reaction. But this trend had lots of practical and technical reasons to exist - we needed very small icons and illustrations that would be readable even in small sizes, and we needed to produce more design using vector graphics tools.
The idea of blaming some company or another is easy thinking.
I work in the area and “flat” and “minimalism” are just ways to speed things up and make them more legible. This article just has an agenda.
“Design has always loved minimalism” isn’t even a true thing to say. There are plenty of designers particularly in the 90s who were maximalists - look at print design during this era, look at stuff from Paula Scher and look at any design mag from the 90s to see Photoshop insanity, distorted and cut up fonts. Lots of other eras had similar ideas - look at the 1950s illustrated magazine ads, the 1980s use of photography, Toulouse Latrec’s poster design.
But looking at magazine design in the 90s this was again a technical/practical design innovation - Photoshop and desktop publishing had become real alongside digital printing, so suddenly you had the opportunity to do anything and print anything. So the end result was an explosion in garish absurdity, some of it quite interesting.
No idea, only getting a pastel colored background with a blinking eye, the HTML source is messy enough that I don't want to read the article
It's just the current style, it'll change back to high-effort imagery in about 20 years.
The article examines this exact assumption, it's worth reading.
It’s not a designer’s problem when it’s the companies themselves that want to blend in with one another.
I think this is what a first rickroll must have felt like.
To be clear, in my browser, no article appeared, I only saw a single blinking eye in the middle of the screen. Together with the title in the link, I was appropriately confused/amused.
An article appeared for me, but the navigation bar took up 1/3-1/4 of the screen, which made it hard to read.
Cannot get past the blinking eye for some reason. I use Firefox
If they can't be bothered to check on Firefox I won't waste my time reading their material.
Seems it is case of yet another page that relies on (google) analytics to work properly: it works with Enhanced Tracking Protection turned off. (Shield at the start of URL bar.)
So it is basically "you have to let us track you to read our content". /Bold move, let's see if it pays off…/
EDIT: NM, seems it is unrelated to tracking after all; just some spaghetti code that (presumably) attaches load event handler too late.
So it is basically "you have to let us track you to read our content". /Bold move, let's see if it pays off…/
EDIT: NM, seems it is unrelated to tracking after all; just some spaghetti code that (presumably) attaches load event handler too late.
Can't say if it would have been a waste of time but otherwise I agree: there's enough other stuff to read on the internet.
Goodbye.
Goodbye.
Same. Workarounds don't appear to be available on mobile. On one hand, it's hilariously meta; on the other hand, I can't even go into the arguably minimalist reader mode
edit: well, outline.com gets at the prose, anyway https://outline.com/DRXrCu
edit: well, outline.com gets at the prose, anyway https://outline.com/DRXrCu
Me too. For a moment there, I even thought it was a joke on minimalism.
"Published April 1st"
Run this in the console:
document.body.classList.remove('preload');Thanks. Sucks that they couldn't be bothered to test it on Firefox.
Another Firefox user chiming in. I had the blinking eye at first, but refreshed the page and it appeared immediately.
This anti-pattern of loading your actual page content asynchronously needs to go away.
This anti-pattern of loading your actual page content asynchronously needs to go away.
same... and i don't care anymore. sloppy programming.
Workaround:
View -> Page Style -> No Style
View -> Page Style -> No Style
I actually suspect that private companies love minimalism because it's cheap. Consider icons, for example - it's faster to create a gray outline than a nice, colorful piece of pixel art.
And this has been a trend for a century or so, since Modernism. My apartment house in Prague, built 130 years ago, has a decorative (blacksmith-made) railings at the stairs. Today something like that would be ridiculously expensive, and it would never get made for an ordinary middle-class house.
And this has been a trend for a century or so, since Modernism. My apartment house in Prague, built 130 years ago, has a decorative (blacksmith-made) railings at the stairs. Today something like that would be ridiculously expensive, and it would never get made for an ordinary middle-class house.
Exactly. If you were to take one of Europe's cathedrals, you can spend 10 years looking at decorations and statues and still discover new things, scenes and details. Every last little detail is thought out, and contributes to the whole of the effect.
They also generally took a fraction of the resources of an entire city for 2-8 centuries to build.
They also generally took a fraction of the resources of an entire city for 2-8 centuries to build.
> They also generally took a fraction of the resources of an entire city for 2-8 centuries to build.
I think this is an interesting point. The cathedrals were built to last, which lessened the cost of all the art. Today things are built not to last, but to be consumed, and therefore it makes sense to omit expensive (and opinionated) design.
I wish open source would lead this way. Instead of emulating the commercial companies and trying to change graphics every couple years into minimalism, cumulatively build up more intricate (and visually interesting) design. It looked like this will happen by late 90s (with all the different graphic themes and such) but then it took a turn.
I think this is an interesting point. The cathedrals were built to last, which lessened the cost of all the art. Today things are built not to last, but to be consumed, and therefore it makes sense to omit expensive (and opinionated) design.
I wish open source would lead this way. Instead of emulating the commercial companies and trying to change graphics every couple years into minimalism, cumulatively build up more intricate (and visually interesting) design. It looked like this will happen by late 90s (with all the different graphic themes and such) but then it took a turn.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. What the "vernacular" style of the early web lacked for intentionality, it more than made up for in variety and sheer élan. Whether we'd live in a better world today had that vernacular not been erased in practice, I don't know that anyone can say one way or the other, but there's no harm in thinking about how that world might be different from the one we have today.
There does exist open-source software of that type (TeX for example) but amusingly it's not much used (the average person using TeX is using LaTeX on pdfTeX which, while based on the TeX source code, isn't TeX).
It’s the old Demotivator poster!
You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision, determination, and an endless supply of expendable labor.
https://despair.com/collections/demotivators/products/achiev...
You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision, determination, and an endless supply of expendable labor.
https://despair.com/collections/demotivators/products/achiev...
I have a suspicion this is partly because the ordinary middle class are poorer today, comparatively.
We have more stuff, but it's lower quality. Anything built to last is beyond what many can afford. And there are structural reasons why it doesn't make sense to buy built-to-last items: nobody repairs them any more. You could save money and buy one or two really good pairs of shoes, like your great-grandparents probably did. But cobblers and shoe repair shops are doing out.
Instead of saving a month's wages for a pair of shoes that would last many years, it's easier to spend a day's wages on something that will wear out within a year. Plus, of course, you might be able to buy several pairs in multiple styles! Woop! More variety, more sales, more landfill.
Fashion à la môde, indeed.
I think it's exactly the same with iron railings. It's similar with domestic appliances, most consumer goods, food, etc etc.
We have more stuff, but it's lower quality. Anything built to last is beyond what many can afford. And there are structural reasons why it doesn't make sense to buy built-to-last items: nobody repairs them any more. You could save money and buy one or two really good pairs of shoes, like your great-grandparents probably did. But cobblers and shoe repair shops are doing out.
Instead of saving a month's wages for a pair of shoes that would last many years, it's easier to spend a day's wages on something that will wear out within a year. Plus, of course, you might be able to buy several pairs in multiple styles! Woop! More variety, more sales, more landfill.
Fashion à la môde, indeed.
I think it's exactly the same with iron railings. It's similar with domestic appliances, most consumer goods, food, etc etc.
I don't think this is correct, at least for graphic designers. I don't know about you but all the designers I know would gladly show you pages and pages of pixel-pushed, pixel-perfect designs.
But those don't easily scale to different dpi and layout sizes. There are non-standard ways but nothing has taken over. So flat icons and solid colors it is.
But those don't easily scale to different dpi and layout sizes. There are non-standard ways but nothing has taken over. So flat icons and solid colors it is.
But those don't easily scale to different dpi and layout sizes. There are non-standard ways but nothing has taken over. So flat icons and solid colors it is.
For a long time, designers/artists might have produced several versions of the "same" icon at different sizes for use in different contexts. Sometimes you'd have a large area to work with, maybe 128x128 or 256x256 pixels. You could have a lot of detail at those sizes, in whatever visual style you liked. At smaller sizes, you didn't just scale down the large icon mechanically. Instead, you'd redraw it to preserve the essence but remove finer details and simplify the overall design as you had fewer pixels to work with.
A similar idea existed in type design. A comprehensive font family might include different "optical sizes". A caption font designed for use at small sizes might have lower stroke contrast, while a display font intended for use with large headlines might feature finely detailed serifs that wouldn't work well at small sizes. If you took the caption font at 8pt and the display font at 48pt and scaled them mechanically to be the same size, they'd look quite different.
In both cases, the advent of mechanically scalable image formats like SVGs and most digital font formats marked a change in common practice. Now you only needed one file to work at any size you wanted, but the subtlety I was talking about above is lost if you're no longer creatively adapting the same basic design for different contexts but instead you have to draw a kind of lowest common denominator that works tolerably at all sizes.
As others have observed, this shift certainly makes things cheaper, but potentially at the expense of quality of design. We only need to look at the bland, homogenous nature of sites built with flat design and its derivatives, not to mention all the obvious usability problems, to see that the popular approach right now isn't actually very good.
For a long time, designers/artists might have produced several versions of the "same" icon at different sizes for use in different contexts. Sometimes you'd have a large area to work with, maybe 128x128 or 256x256 pixels. You could have a lot of detail at those sizes, in whatever visual style you liked. At smaller sizes, you didn't just scale down the large icon mechanically. Instead, you'd redraw it to preserve the essence but remove finer details and simplify the overall design as you had fewer pixels to work with.
A similar idea existed in type design. A comprehensive font family might include different "optical sizes". A caption font designed for use at small sizes might have lower stroke contrast, while a display font intended for use with large headlines might feature finely detailed serifs that wouldn't work well at small sizes. If you took the caption font at 8pt and the display font at 48pt and scaled them mechanically to be the same size, they'd look quite different.
In both cases, the advent of mechanically scalable image formats like SVGs and most digital font formats marked a change in common practice. Now you only needed one file to work at any size you wanted, but the subtlety I was talking about above is lost if you're no longer creatively adapting the same basic design for different contexts but instead you have to draw a kind of lowest common denominator that works tolerably at all sizes.
As others have observed, this shift certainly makes things cheaper, but potentially at the expense of quality of design. We only need to look at the bland, homogenous nature of sites built with flat design and its derivatives, not to mention all the obvious usability problems, to see that the popular approach right now isn't actually very good.
That could definitely be the case for physical items since the production cost increases with the design complexity however is it really cheaper when you don't have to produce it beyond the design itself?
Maybe it could be argued that it could be cheaper for a sweatshop that profits per artworks produced per second per designer however non-sweatshop made designs are also quite often minimalist.
Maybe it could be argued that it could be cheaper for a sweatshop that profits per artworks produced per second per designer however non-sweatshop made designs are also quite often minimalist.
Physical items can get elements of scale for somewhat complex shapes. That is why almost all houses have one of 3 different spindle patterns for their railing, someone invested in the machines to mass produce that pattern and so it is just as cheap as a simpler pattern that would work just as well. If you want a different pattern for your spindles you will pay though as it isn't mass produced.
Yep. As a designer, it's much easier for me to make a flat rectangle than something photo-realistic. And you know what's even easier? Putting down no rectangle.
And if I have an excuse to leave out fine pixel editing -- like because it makes me look high-class -- then I'll go for lazy! Hell yeah.
Designers love minimal designs because it makes their job easier, and it comes with free rationale attached, backed by Steve Jobs and Dieter Rahms themselves. It's a laziness that nobody can fire us for. We love it. We LOOOVE it.
And if I have an excuse to leave out fine pixel editing -- like because it makes me look high-class -- then I'll go for lazy! Hell yeah.
Designers love minimal designs because it makes their job easier, and it comes with free rationale attached, backed by Steve Jobs and Dieter Rahms themselves. It's a laziness that nobody can fire us for. We love it. We LOOOVE it.
According to your bio, you are supposed to be "Independent Scientist in Computer Science and Psychology", so are you trolling or do I fail to get the joke here?
My research area is Human-Computer Interaction, aka "UI Design." It combines Computer Science and Psychology. I am also a practicing designer.
Pixel art is actually very easy and cheap to create, even cheaper than a vector icon of the same resolution/color depth. The issue is that it doesn't easily lead to pixel-perfect rendering at any resolution; there are good resampling algorithms but they work in fixed steps like 2x or 3x.
It seems like pixel art would be an ideal case for automatic vectorization - literally just a series of adjacent colored squares, one per pixel, and the resulting vector could be scaled at will with no loss of fidelity. It seems so easy to automate that I might do it later just for kicks, and it also seems so obvious that I can't possibly believe I'm the first to have thought of it. Is it just not a common practice, or are there difficulties I'm not seeing, or is there maybe something else here I'm missing?
edit: Ah, OK, found some prior art: https://www.drububu.com/tutorial/bitmap-to-vector.html
edit: Ah, OK, found some prior art: https://www.drububu.com/tutorial/bitmap-to-vector.html
My website is minimal because I have no graphic design talent whatsoever.
I think that's properly called High Vernacular Brutalism.
Kidding aside, anyone looking at my site today can tell a) that I had no design skill when I set it up, and also b) that I sucked at picking Wordpress themes besides. I have some plans for that, but it's not really a high priority at the moment; other projects are interesting me more.
Kidding aside, anyone looking at my site today can tell a) that I had no design skill when I set it up, and also b) that I sucked at picking Wordpress themes besides. I have some plans for that, but it's not really a high priority at the moment; other projects are interesting me more.
It goes the same for a lot of indie apps, of which there are tons. Flat design levels the playing field.
Icons are an interesting use case; I think they are made to be scalable and recognizable from a 16x16px favicon, regular sized website logo, various sized app icons, and massive billboard sized.
I mean I've got a DHL track&trace tab open and its icon looks like a red line in a yellow square, so they haven't designed a recognizable new logo yet for that use case. HN / YC's icon is much better in that regard. Github is also open and that too is quite recognizable.
I mean I've got a DHL track&trace tab open and its icon looks like a red line in a yellow square, so they haven't designed a recognizable new logo yet for that use case. HN / YC's icon is much better in that regard. Github is also open and that too is quite recognizable.
Good UI design focuses on reducing visual noise in order to help people use the interface. Occasionally they go too far, and I would argue that decoration can be an important part in differentiating parts of a design for the viewer ( a touch of class, as it were ).
I'm not sure how much this applies to web design but the reason for non-ornate standard banisters and what not is mass production. The population was much smaller and far fewer houses being built 130 years ago. Artisan manufacturing doesn't scale.
But this doesn't explain why companies would replace icons that they already have with minimalist icons. That's an additional expense, no matter how small.
I think there is quite a difference between minimalism and simplicity which is often confused (also by designers themselves).
Simplicity done right is really about focusing on the core idea and removing anything not related to that. This can feel like a “minimalist aesthetic” which others attempt to copy but is actually something completely different.
Simplicity done right is really about focusing on the core idea and removing anything not related to that. This can feel like a “minimalist aesthetic” which others attempt to copy but is actually something completely different.
I’m working on generative coding art. One thing I like about it is how having to literally “code” your art enforces already an initial formalization of the shapes in the work.
Check out here to see some of it: https://hyperobjects.design/gallery/genuary-collection
Check out here to see some of it: https://hyperobjects.design/gallery/genuary-collection
Thanks! I really liked some of the examples there.
Do you have any links to other work, or are you primarily interested in what can be coded?
Do you have any links to other work, or are you primarily interested in what can be coded?
So because coding art is hard, it's more difficult not to make it minimal, I guess.
Is that built with something like 3djs?
Is that built with something like 3djs?
Built using my custom creative coding tool which also incorporates some d3 stuff:
Code sample: https://workbench.hyperobjects.design/share/?script=5febbf46...
Code sample: https://workbench.hyperobjects.design/share/?script=5febbf46...
I dont know what exactly was the issue, but that page was uncomfortable to read and look at.
So what are some good examples of recent non-minimalist design?
Speaking of GUIs and such, I would look at computer games. They often have a very distinct style, and have to balance it with the actual need to get stuff done (in game).
For example, I play Factorio quite a bit now, and the UX is a pleasure. The graphic design itself plays only a small role in that, but all the traditional elements, like buttons easy to recognize, ability to have hotkeys, tooltips, highlights, etc. are there.
For example, I play Factorio quite a bit now, and the UX is a pleasure. The graphic design itself plays only a small role in that, but all the traditional elements, like buttons easy to recognize, ability to have hotkeys, tooltips, highlights, etc. are there.
[deleted]
Hacker News (does that count as recent?), websites https://brutalistwebsites.com/, interior design https://youtu.be/-ApyRpd2tug, indie games https://fantasticarcade.com/games/. So many things. It certainly varies in quality more, for obvious reasons.
The parent asked for non-minimalist though - hacker news is decidely minimalist
This is so hard to define. On the one hand, hacker news is covered in small-font text, dense with information. On the other hand, there's nothing else on the page.
Is that minimal, or info-abundant?
Is that minimal, or info-abundant?
For me, minimal is about what design elements and other details you decide to exclude, at a systems level. I think designs can be dense but minimal. e.g. check out the work of Ryoji Ikeda - information density stripped down to the bare essentials.
Isn't it kind of hard to talk about information density when it comes to art?
Very much not.
Isn't it? I think it depends on the art.
You can learn a lot about wasps from the pictures I take of them, but the giant triptych of a hunting P. metricus forager that spans one wall of my living room doesn't convey the same meaning that a series of illustrations in an entomology textbook would.
You can learn a lot about wasps from the pictures I take of them, but the giant triptych of a hunting P. metricus forager that spans one wall of my living room doesn't convey the same meaning that a series of illustrations in an entomology textbook would.
That depends on what you mean by information and density.
There's a concept of perceptual qualia-density which has nothing to do with semantic density in the linguistic/narrative sense.
There's a concept of perceptual qualia-density which has nothing to do with semantic density in the linguistic/narrative sense.
I'm very much out of my depth in the formal language of academic philosophy, but if I'm understanding correctly, the concept you describe refers roughly to the density and - I guess completeness? - of information, contained in a given signification, about the perception which elicited the act of signification from whoever performed it. That perception isn't assumed to be accurate, but that's beside the point, which is to measure the fidelity of signification to perception. (I think. I'm working pretty much off Isaac's 2010 dissertation, and can't really say how well that work captures the subject or how well my understanding captures that work.)
In that sense, I think my photos and the textbook illustrations must be even more different than I already considered them to be. The illustrations deliberately don't capture the qualia that elicited them; they are intentionally abstract, sacrificing most detail in order by contrast to highlight the specific aspects considered most useful to the student of whatever specific topic they illustrate. They're information-dense in that sense, but not in the one under discussion here. My photos [1] are just the opposite; not only are they not abstracted, I've put a fair amount of work into editing them - cropping, white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpening, fine HSL adjustment per-channel - precisely with the intent that they should represent as accurately as possible, not the assorted energies of photons which impinged on the camera's sensor and were sampled over the course of 4ms or however long, but what I saw as I watched a hunting animal and her prey through a machine which both magnified them considerably and (by dint of a rubber eye cup) blocked out all other light. Which, if I understand the philosophical concept correctly, makes the photos in that sense by far the richer in informational content of the two examples.
It might, anyway. There is a good deal that those photos don't capture, like the bright heat of the blazing June day on which I took them - the darkness of the backgrounds is an artifact of technique, rather than a true representation of the scene. Or, beyond that, the mix of lingering fear and burgeoning fascination I felt as I took the shots, with the lens objective six inches from the subjects, and their sisters and fellow foragers buzzing about my head and not minding me at all - it was in fact during the taking of these shots that I lost my previously lively fear of wasps, this change occasioned in part by the camera itself and the sense of emotional distance its presentation of images can impose upon its user. In this case, it was that distance - that sense that, whatever I saw through the machine, it did not involve me as it would if seen with bare eyes - that enabled me to approach in spite of fear, eventually close enough to take these shots and in so doing first recognize the beauty both of the hunting animals themselves, and of the singleminded, innocent ruthlessness with which they stalk, pursue, capture, and dispose of prey. When after a while I noticed I was in the middle of a small eccentric cloud of paper wasps, none of whom gave any sign even of noticing my presence save as a static obstacle to be avoided in flight, the last of my fear of wasps evaporated, and I haven't felt it again since. I think that more than anything else was what moved me to make of those raw images what I have, but I don't know how much that experience constitutes of their informational content, or how much that determination is even mine to make.
[1] https://aaron-m.com/2019/07/08/polistes-metricus
In that sense, I think my photos and the textbook illustrations must be even more different than I already considered them to be. The illustrations deliberately don't capture the qualia that elicited them; they are intentionally abstract, sacrificing most detail in order by contrast to highlight the specific aspects considered most useful to the student of whatever specific topic they illustrate. They're information-dense in that sense, but not in the one under discussion here. My photos [1] are just the opposite; not only are they not abstracted, I've put a fair amount of work into editing them - cropping, white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpening, fine HSL adjustment per-channel - precisely with the intent that they should represent as accurately as possible, not the assorted energies of photons which impinged on the camera's sensor and were sampled over the course of 4ms or however long, but what I saw as I watched a hunting animal and her prey through a machine which both magnified them considerably and (by dint of a rubber eye cup) blocked out all other light. Which, if I understand the philosophical concept correctly, makes the photos in that sense by far the richer in informational content of the two examples.
It might, anyway. There is a good deal that those photos don't capture, like the bright heat of the blazing June day on which I took them - the darkness of the backgrounds is an artifact of technique, rather than a true representation of the scene. Or, beyond that, the mix of lingering fear and burgeoning fascination I felt as I took the shots, with the lens objective six inches from the subjects, and their sisters and fellow foragers buzzing about my head and not minding me at all - it was in fact during the taking of these shots that I lost my previously lively fear of wasps, this change occasioned in part by the camera itself and the sense of emotional distance its presentation of images can impose upon its user. In this case, it was that distance - that sense that, whatever I saw through the machine, it did not involve me as it would if seen with bare eyes - that enabled me to approach in spite of fear, eventually close enough to take these shots and in so doing first recognize the beauty both of the hunting animals themselves, and of the singleminded, innocent ruthlessness with which they stalk, pursue, capture, and dispose of prey. When after a while I noticed I was in the middle of a small eccentric cloud of paper wasps, none of whom gave any sign even of noticing my presence save as a static obstacle to be avoided in flight, the last of my fear of wasps evaporated, and I haven't felt it again since. I think that more than anything else was what moved me to make of those raw images what I have, but I don't know how much that experience constitutes of their informational content, or how much that determination is even mine to make.
[1] https://aaron-m.com/2019/07/08/polistes-metricus
Do you mind elaborating?
Sure. I think that (especially modern) art, can have as much meaning as the observer wants it to have. The artist may have some initial thought about what idea they want to express, but once their work is out there, they lose the control over the meaning of it.
Ryoji Ikeda arguably uses "information" in his art pieces, but it's not like it is presented in a useful manner.
Ryoji Ikeda arguably uses "information" in his art pieces, but it's not like it is presented in a useful manner.
Ok, I now see where you were going with your original question. The point you're making is interpreting art is subjective and information density is more of a practical concern about utility, and the two are at odds.
The point I was making was something can be dense but minimal, because to me, minimal is "systems" question. I chose an artist as an example, but perhaps that complicates the point because the artist's primary concern is not utility.
>Ikeda arguably uses "information" in his art pieces, but it's not like it is presented in a useful manner
Here's where interpreting Ikeda gets kinda fun. By the way, he very intentionally does not care about meaning. He wants us to decide. Most of his work is driven by real data sets, like human genome, CERN super collider data, digits of mathematical constants, every part from a Honda Civic, position of stars in the universe.
For non-experts, I think he uncovers the vastness of many systems that are difficult to visualize, allowing people to "experience" the efforts behind, e.g. encoding the human genome.
Of course, it's not useful in the sense of a tool or utility, but you might walk away with a new perspective on science, engineering, mathematics, that before was totally opaque to most people.
The point I was making was something can be dense but minimal, because to me, minimal is "systems" question. I chose an artist as an example, but perhaps that complicates the point because the artist's primary concern is not utility.
>Ikeda arguably uses "information" in his art pieces, but it's not like it is presented in a useful manner
Here's where interpreting Ikeda gets kinda fun. By the way, he very intentionally does not care about meaning. He wants us to decide. Most of his work is driven by real data sets, like human genome, CERN super collider data, digits of mathematical constants, every part from a Honda Civic, position of stars in the universe.
For non-experts, I think he uncovers the vastness of many systems that are difficult to visualize, allowing people to "experience" the efforts behind, e.g. encoding the human genome.
Of course, it's not useful in the sense of a tool or utility, but you might walk away with a new perspective on science, engineering, mathematics, that before was totally opaque to most people.
Just had a look at the site - https://www.ryojiikeda.com/
Good luck reading any of that.
Setting your font size to 9px or whatever is not how you increase information density.
That's just bad usability.
Good luck reading any of that.
Setting your font size to 9px or whatever is not how you increase information density.
That's just bad usability.
Not his website, his artwork. Just search YouTube.
It’s one form of maximalism. Compare to, say, theverge.com. More visible content = less minimalist. If you watch the youtube video I posted you can see the corollary within interior design: maximalism does not require abundant variation (colors in one example) only abundant visible information. Brutalism is only one form of maximalism. Maximalism varies much more than minimalism.
I'd be interested in examples of modern, minimalist design systems that put function before form. e.g.: clear separation of actionable vs non-actionable elements, proper links and such.
Yes, this is the interesting thing. People are saying minimalism is easy, designers are lazy, etc, and that doesn't match my experience. Spartan, barren, asceticism is easy, but presenting only what's necessary, only when it's necessary is not.
If you mean in the physical world, find some resources on Art Nouveau and Art Deco, the latest architecture styles before Modernism took over.
Or for something newer, Post-Modernism.
Or for something newer, Post-Modernism.
As long as free markets, open societies and capitalism are not merely the tools to achieve prosperity but serve as guiding values, there is no going back to the kind of beauty we once took for granted, and which you can see & feel in every old town part of ancient cities.
The current aesthetics are derived from applying the following optimization functions:
- cost: cheap / simple / flat is preferred over elaborate / ornate / pleasant
- power relations: megacorps and their necessarily globalist lowest-common-denominator taste determine what artists/graphic designers/... produce, instead of the singular "soul in the game" creator
- maximal international compatibility of products and services, resulting in a loss of regional diversity and the emergence of interchangeable architecture
- centralisation & accumulation of bureaucratic rules, regulation & power, resulting in regulatory capture / zoning laws / a plethora of second order effects
- increasing credentialism, leading to more things becoming "academic" and thus eliminate craftsmanship and its culture - see the decline of architecture
- joint stock corporations and the principal/agent problems that necessarily come with them, due to decoupling profit from responsibility
The current aesthetics are derived from applying the following optimization functions:
- cost: cheap / simple / flat is preferred over elaborate / ornate / pleasant
- power relations: megacorps and their necessarily globalist lowest-common-denominator taste determine what artists/graphic designers/... produce, instead of the singular "soul in the game" creator
- maximal international compatibility of products and services, resulting in a loss of regional diversity and the emergence of interchangeable architecture
- centralisation & accumulation of bureaucratic rules, regulation & power, resulting in regulatory capture / zoning laws / a plethora of second order effects
- increasing credentialism, leading to more things becoming "academic" and thus eliminate craftsmanship and its culture - see the decline of architecture
- joint stock corporations and the principal/agent problems that necessarily come with them, due to decoupling profit from responsibility
That sticky header is really annoying. It is too big, the eye is distracting, and it is not helping much when trying to read the article. Why do I need a progress indicator, when I already have scroll bar?
I mean it looks kinda nice at a first glance, but to people really like that?
I mean it looks kinda nice at a first glance, but to people really like that?
Design and art styles are fads. As soon as minimalism becomes oversaturated, and it already is, people will shift to another art movement. No need to panic, it has happened before, it will happen again.
Articles like this one are actually what will drive the shift towards adopting new art styles.
Articles like this one are actually what will drive the shift towards adopting new art styles.
Whole point of design is not to be bundled together with art.
Good design strives towards a more engineering/problem solving approach - finding solutions to identified problems.
This is why the article is kinda whatever - design with ornamentation or doodads is not design.
Good design strives towards a more engineering/problem solving approach - finding solutions to identified problems.
This is why the article is kinda whatever - design with ornamentation or doodads is not design.
I grew up in a city full of “unnecessary” ornament and spent a while in a city where everything was turning into absolutely brutalist 5-over-1 apartment blocks. That ornament does a lot to make the place feel welcoming and human.
Mood is a thing that design and ornamentation effects. It is a thing neglected by engineers and capitalists on the whole but it is important.
Mood is a thing that design and ornamentation effects. It is a thing neglected by engineers and capitalists on the whole but it is important.
It all depends on the quality of the design and engineering. If you feel alienated and shitty in a place, then it probably wasn’t designed very well.
I don’t know where all the “capitalists” come in to the picture as that is a whole other matter.
I don’t know where all the “capitalists” come in to the picture as that is a whole other matter.
One issue I see is that all the new cloud-friendly UI design apps seem to be very oriented towards flat design, so doing anything else may be an uphill battle.
> What if this recent spate of rebrands, then, is less a passing fad — a lack of creativity among contemporary graphic design — and more a natural endpoint in a profession forever obsessed with simplifying?
These minimalist redesigns are already getting boring. Designers may like minimalism, but they definitely do not like boring, and so they will find styles that are more interesting again.
These minimalist redesigns are already getting boring. Designers may like minimalism, but they definitely do not like boring, and so they will find styles that are more interesting again.
I am in design field more than 20 years. The minimalism trend is just another way of lowering the cost for manufacturing.
Thats all. Designers that are capable of producing long-term value are scarce and expensive. Companies treat design as "Marketing Decoration" and lowering the standard for the profession has produced hordes of technically capable designers that don't have deep knowledge of the subject.
There is no time to learn the foundations. There is no time to explore possibilities. Just apply "best practices" and call it a day.
The end result is homogeneity on a mass scale and lack of individuality.
The anti-design and dark patterns trends are so strong, that in near future design will be successfully generated by AI like systems.
Tech founders are design biased, they hide this behind terms as "accessibility", "inclusive design", "design testing", etc. This is a direct result of "thinking big" culture - Design for big audience, big VC, big "success" and mass adoption, before you know your audience at all. Design is measured today by "market value" and judging by the designers salaries - frontend devs are more valuable than skilled design professional. So, this is what you get by paying less.
In my business I cannot give quality without being payed for the effort. I have dedicated my life to become skilled professional. There is no incentive to apply expertise and knowledge, when you know that your work will be measured as "cultural fit".
To make a counter-argument: I previously worked at a larger e-commerce company with a very strong design department. Working with the design team was not always easy because they had their own ideas about what customers wanted/prefer. They also had their own ideas about what is morally acceptable to implement and what is not. Within the company, they almost had their own culture. As a result, we had no "dark patterns," which was a good thing.
In some cases, however, it became clear that their design/aesthetics thinking was more important to them than user experience. For example, when we displayed prices on mobile devices, we did not include a CTA. My team persuaded them to conduct a simple A/B test on mobile with an arrow button next to prices. As a result, conversion increased by 10%. People simply did not realize they could continue to the next step by clicking on the price. The design team despised the button, but it enabled customers to complete their tasks on our website.
In some cases, however, it became clear that their design/aesthetics thinking was more important to them than user experience. For example, when we displayed prices on mobile devices, we did not include a CTA. My team persuaded them to conduct a simple A/B test on mobile with an arrow button next to prices. As a result, conversion increased by 10%. People simply did not realize they could continue to the next step by clicking on the price. The design team despised the button, but it enabled customers to complete their tasks on our website.
My personal opinion is that this is the result of "low quality" of design education.
When you separate intellectual and practical processes you cannot crate meaning. Example of top of my head: Bauhaus revolution was possible because of practical approach towards design.
Designers that prefer aesthetic over product function are actually not professionals. Designers that have no insight in technical implementation are not capable to design properly. To design properly, one must rely on deep knowledge of classical principles and actual data.
P.S. This counter-argument sounds more like "management and communication" problem.
When you separate intellectual and practical processes you cannot crate meaning. Example of top of my head: Bauhaus revolution was possible because of practical approach towards design.
Designers that prefer aesthetic over product function are actually not professionals. Designers that have no insight in technical implementation are not capable to design properly. To design properly, one must rely on deep knowledge of classical principles and actual data.
P.S. This counter-argument sounds more like "management and communication" problem.
Yes, maybe you’re right. But in this case at least the problem was clearly “located” in the design departement.
I think this highlights that graphic designers are not necessarily good UI designers.
Yes and no. The foundations of design are aesthetics and critical thinking. Every design has technical and functional specification.
If one designs a car, one must know what is "packaging". If one designs for print, one must know the printing process. If one designs for UI, one must know the medium inside out. There is no generalisation. I can argue that todays UI designers have lack of design foundation, color theory, composition, typography and are producing colourful, non-functional garbage.
Example: The lack of contrast in mass adopted UI trends is not only aesthetically wrong but actually is an accessibility problem.
If one designs a car, one must know what is "packaging". If one designs for print, one must know the printing process. If one designs for UI, one must know the medium inside out. There is no generalisation. I can argue that todays UI designers have lack of design foundation, color theory, composition, typography and are producing colourful, non-functional garbage.
Example: The lack of contrast in mass adopted UI trends is not only aesthetically wrong but actually is an accessibility problem.
Example: This is a company with 13 million funding, without budget to spend on design:
While the team is still less than ~20 ppl, we likely won't have a full-time designer. With the ubiquity of tools like Figma and design libraries like Material Design, we actually think this is okay. You're welcome to hire an agency to help with things like colors, fonts, illustrations, and to audit our component library.
Agency? To help? May be more like "some freelancers and stock design templates". Good Lord. And then you have audacity to complain that "there is no design".
While the team is still less than ~20 ppl, we likely won't have a full-time designer. With the ubiquity of tools like Figma and design libraries like Material Design, we actually think this is okay. You're welcome to hire an agency to help with things like colors, fonts, illustrations, and to audit our component library.
Agency? To help? May be more like "some freelancers and stock design templates". Good Lord. And then you have audacity to complain that "there is no design".
I'm not quite sure what position and tone the parent comment is aiming for. Is this an example of the GP's concern that you are agreeing with? Or an example of why you think graphic design really is overrated because here's a company with millions in funding that doesn't care about design?
You're welcome to hire an agency to help with things like colors, fonts, illustrations, and to audit our component library.
I suspect someone like the GP could help with the other 90% of what graphic design is about, too, and the attitude implied here (whether it's your or the company's, again I'm not sure) is probably exactly what the GP is disappointed with.
You're welcome to hire an agency to help with things like colors, fonts, illustrations, and to audit our component library.
I suspect someone like the GP could help with the other 90% of what graphic design is about, too, and the attitude implied here (whether it's your or the company's, again I'm not sure) is probably exactly what the GP is disappointed with.
I represent my company and my professional views. You don't have to agree with me. If I have 13 million investment for new product I will invest in design system and brand differentiation from the start - period. Why? Because of the idea that my product must be unique. But hey, there is material library, why bother at this stage?
Just hire someone to "decorate" over and make some "trendy" illustrations. Right?
Just an inside: Last year I have returned 5 offers to redesign "some product" from startups, because they have build it with this way of thinking and redesign implementation is not possible. They must rebuild the whole product from scratch with design focus.
Don't fall in this trap, to think that I have something "personal" and you must imply some wrongdoing. Please.
Just an inside: Last year I have returned 5 offers to redesign "some product" from startups, because they have build it with this way of thinking and redesign implementation is not possible. They must rebuild the whole product from scratch with design focus.
Don't fall in this trap, to think that I have something "personal" and you must imply some wrongdoing. Please.
I didn't see the response to your comment as implying wrongdoing.
I was also having difficulty understanding the point you were making.
You've clarified that now though, so thank you.
I was also having difficulty understanding the point you were making.
You've clarified that now though, so thank you.
I wasn't intending to imply any wrongdoing, and I too was having some trouble understanding which side of the argument the comment I replied to was taking. (The comment was also edited after I wrote my reply.)
After the follow-up, I think nbzso is arguing that good design does matter and can't just be retrofitted later, and in that case, we agree.
Edit: Also, I've just realised that both the top comment and the one I replied to were written by the same person, so actually it seems very clear that we're in agreement. Apologies for missing that before.
After the follow-up, I think nbzso is arguing that good design does matter and can't just be retrofitted later, and in that case, we agree.
Edit: Also, I've just realised that both the top comment and the one I replied to were written by the same person, so actually it seems very clear that we're in agreement. Apologies for missing that before.
Thanks for your reply.
Hit the nail on this one.
> judging by the designers salaries - frontend devs are more valuable than skilled design professional. So, this is what you get by paying less.
Why should frontend devs be not paid more than designers? Many frontend devs have dedicated significant numbers of years to become skilled professionals, just like you.
Why should frontend devs be not paid more than designers? Many frontend devs have dedicated significant numbers of years to become skilled professionals, just like you.
As a front-end dev by nature of my business I witnessed the difference my self and can share it with you. When designing a product right and towards long term quality, designers decision has more business value than front-end development.
You can use design system for years to come and change front-end tech several times in this period. Todays front-end development is not like in 2008 when we used vanilla JS/Jquery/Ajax, there are tons of libraries and modularity in front-end development process. The low payment for designers is just tech founders devaluing the design process and the result is less qualified designers competing for what is left on the table (spoiler alert: it’s not too much).
As you can see from citation, the mentioned startup is not looking for a designer, because they are under 20 people. Design is not important, because in perceived from tech founders view - material design library will be enough:)
Don’t get me wrong. There are use cases for front-end development, when experienced developer can be critical for the business and bring immense value. I share my point of view, that if things go in current direction may be in near future design will be generated by neural nets on some “data proven” and “success guaranteed” methodology.
You can use design system for years to come and change front-end tech several times in this period. Todays front-end development is not like in 2008 when we used vanilla JS/Jquery/Ajax, there are tons of libraries and modularity in front-end development process. The low payment for designers is just tech founders devaluing the design process and the result is less qualified designers competing for what is left on the table (spoiler alert: it’s not too much).
As you can see from citation, the mentioned startup is not looking for a designer, because they are under 20 people. Design is not important, because in perceived from tech founders view - material design library will be enough:)
Don’t get me wrong. There are use cases for front-end development, when experienced developer can be critical for the business and bring immense value. I share my point of view, that if things go in current direction may be in near future design will be generated by neural nets on some “data proven” and “success guaranteed” methodology.
> When designing a product right and towards long term quality, designers decision has more business value than front-end development.
A good design badly implemented leads to a poor product.
> You can use design system for years to come and change front-end tech several times in this period.
> Todays front-end development is not like in 2008 when we used vanilla JS/Jquery/Ajax, there are tons of libraries and modularity in front-end development process.
> The low payment for designers is just tech founders devaluing the design process and the result is less qualified designers competing for what is left on the table (spoiler alert: it’s not too much).
Or it could be a realization by founders that design skills have commoditized enough that specialist designers do not provide enough incremental value.
If you hold the position that other parts of product development have commoditized with the advent of more libraries, it a strange to claim that design is immune to this change over time. The stance is especially peculiar because you also claim that the value of good design is its ability to be applicable for many years.
So, maybe in many domains all the good designs have been explored and consensus arrived at that paying high for a specialist designer is valuable to only handful of teams?
A good design badly implemented leads to a poor product.
> You can use design system for years to come and change front-end tech several times in this period.
> Todays front-end development is not like in 2008 when we used vanilla JS/Jquery/Ajax, there are tons of libraries and modularity in front-end development process.
> The low payment for designers is just tech founders devaluing the design process and the result is less qualified designers competing for what is left on the table (spoiler alert: it’s not too much).
Or it could be a realization by founders that design skills have commoditized enough that specialist designers do not provide enough incremental value.
If you hold the position that other parts of product development have commoditized with the advent of more libraries, it a strange to claim that design is immune to this change over time. The stance is especially peculiar because you also claim that the value of good design is its ability to be applicable for many years.
So, maybe in many domains all the good designs have been explored and consensus arrived at that paying high for a specialist designer is valuable to only handful of teams?
Or it could be a realization by founders that design skills have commoditized enough that specialist designers do not provide enough incremental value.
It could be, yes. Another possibility is that most founders have so little knowledge of good design and what it can do that most of them don't even consider whether it can be used to their advantage. I suspect there is some truth in both of these theories.
Some examples that come to mind immediately are Apple, Tesla and Ubiquiti, all of which have been successful despite entering established markets where huge incumbents had vast resources available to compete. That success came after the newcomers introduced more "designer" hardware products that offered slick user experiences, making the competition look old and clunky by comparison, and giving the newcomers enough of an edge to disrupt the market. Something else that is noticeable about all of those companies is that they have built extremely loyal customer bases, which have endured even when they've had problems with products and despite their relatively high prices.
It seems to be accepted wisdom among much of the startup community that a business like Apple is unique and there is no point trying to follow the same strategy because we can't all be Steve Jobs or Jony Ive. Maybe a few more founders should be asking, why not?
It could be, yes. Another possibility is that most founders have so little knowledge of good design and what it can do that most of them don't even consider whether it can be used to their advantage. I suspect there is some truth in both of these theories.
Some examples that come to mind immediately are Apple, Tesla and Ubiquiti, all of which have been successful despite entering established markets where huge incumbents had vast resources available to compete. That success came after the newcomers introduced more "designer" hardware products that offered slick user experiences, making the competition look old and clunky by comparison, and giving the newcomers enough of an edge to disrupt the market. Something else that is noticeable about all of those companies is that they have built extremely loyal customer bases, which have endured even when they've had problems with products and despite their relatively high prices.
It seems to be accepted wisdom among much of the startup community that a business like Apple is unique and there is no point trying to follow the same strategy because we can't all be Steve Jobs or Jony Ive. Maybe a few more founders should be asking, why not?
Unfortunately, quality is expensive. Customers don't always want to pay for it, and so the businesses serving those customers don't either. This is true of good design, but other things too. For example, how many software businesses today believe having lots of bugs is OK as long as they can keep the money coming in?
Some of the most successful sites on the Web have abysmal design and some of the most successful sites on the Web break all the time. And yet, despite those things, they remain among the most successful sites on the Web. Unless and until those of us who value quality can make it pay as a business model, we're always going to lose the argument. The hard thing to accept is that if we can't turn better quality into a competitive advantage, maybe we should be losing the argument.
Some of the most successful sites on the Web have abysmal design and some of the most successful sites on the Web break all the time. And yet, despite those things, they remain among the most successful sites on the Web. Unless and until those of us who value quality can make it pay as a business model, we're always going to lose the argument. The hard thing to accept is that if we can't turn better quality into a competitive advantage, maybe we should be losing the argument.
I am happy that we have a discussion on the subject. Its rare nowadays. We all share bits of personal and professional true, which is what makes HN a priceless place.
"Another possibility is that most founders have so little knowledge of good design and what it can do that most of them don't even consider whether it can be used to their advantage. I suspect there is some truth in both of these theories."
Commoditisation of design elements is a chance for startups to hire qualified designer from the start. In hands of a good designer, commoditisation is a prototype tool, not final point of implementation.
The problem is that they are not willing to pay for "design", because they undervalue the work of designers and don't understand how critical is for their products in competitive market in which everyone uses the same UI libraries, the same "best practices", the same PM mantras.
"Another possibility is that most founders have so little knowledge of good design and what it can do that most of them don't even consider whether it can be used to their advantage. I suspect there is some truth in both of these theories."
Commoditisation of design elements is a chance for startups to hire qualified designer from the start. In hands of a good designer, commoditisation is a prototype tool, not final point of implementation.
The problem is that they are not willing to pay for "design", because they undervalue the work of designers and don't understand how critical is for their products in competitive market in which everyone uses the same UI libraries, the same "best practices", the same PM mantras.
I think perhaps the question we are avoiding here is exactly when it makes sense for a tech firm to bring in specialist design skills. It's easy to say "from the start", but in reality, if you've got maybe 1-3 founders starting a new tech business from scratch, it would be unusual for any of them to be a specialist designer. Maybe one of them has some decent design skills in addition to whatever their main role is, but that's probably the best you're going to get.
The first hires will almost certainly need to be developers or salespeople. If you're looking for early funding, you need something to show potential investors and you need to know if you've found product-market fit. If it's a bootstrapped firm that isn't looking for outside investment, you need to bring money into the bank and establish a sustainable cash flow, and no amount of design will do that if you don't have something you can sell and someone to sell it.
So realistically, you're probably looking at bringing in specialist designers no earlier than the "second wave" of employees. At that point, you probably already have some sort of MVP and maybe a few further iterations. If a designer can't come in at that stage and effectively guide the existing product towards better usability and aesthetics, I think they're going to find opportunities for work are very sparse.
Then the question becomes, do all the commoditised toolkits and marketplace themes and colour scheme generators and icon packs do enough to make an early product useful before a "real" designer is involved? And I think obviously the answer is yes, because a lot of businesses have been doing that in recent years and it's worked for them. They're not ideal, but at that stage, they're good enough.
And so finally, I think the fundamental issue is about how a team building a new product without a dedicated designer can use those off-the-shelf tools and make something with good enough usability to be useful and attract business, while recognising that this is ideally a temporary situation and keeping everything as flexible as possible for the next stage of design when it starts to become more important and maybe they're starting to have team members with those specialist skills coming in to take responsibility for that aspect of the product. This is a subject that I see very little discussion about, compared to all the talk about one ready-made tool or another, or how an established design team might respond to different requirements later on.
The first hires will almost certainly need to be developers or salespeople. If you're looking for early funding, you need something to show potential investors and you need to know if you've found product-market fit. If it's a bootstrapped firm that isn't looking for outside investment, you need to bring money into the bank and establish a sustainable cash flow, and no amount of design will do that if you don't have something you can sell and someone to sell it.
So realistically, you're probably looking at bringing in specialist designers no earlier than the "second wave" of employees. At that point, you probably already have some sort of MVP and maybe a few further iterations. If a designer can't come in at that stage and effectively guide the existing product towards better usability and aesthetics, I think they're going to find opportunities for work are very sparse.
Then the question becomes, do all the commoditised toolkits and marketplace themes and colour scheme generators and icon packs do enough to make an early product useful before a "real" designer is involved? And I think obviously the answer is yes, because a lot of businesses have been doing that in recent years and it's worked for them. They're not ideal, but at that stage, they're good enough.
And so finally, I think the fundamental issue is about how a team building a new product without a dedicated designer can use those off-the-shelf tools and make something with good enough usability to be useful and attract business, while recognising that this is ideally a temporary situation and keeping everything as flexible as possible for the next stage of design when it starts to become more important and maybe they're starting to have team members with those specialist skills coming in to take responsibility for that aspect of the product. This is a subject that I see very little discussion about, compared to all the talk about one ready-made tool or another, or how an established design team might respond to different requirements later on.
[deleted]
judging from the page source it seems that Javascript developers hate minimalism.
Minimalism is the most difficult design style.
- It's easy to end up with something that looks unfinished, unintentional or lazy
- If you over-simplify, the design loses character, like the uniform sans style critiqued in the article
But consider good minimalist design like the Nike logo. When it's done well it can be amazingly timeless.
- It's easy to end up with something that looks unfinished, unintentional or lazy
- If you over-simplify, the design loses character, like the uniform sans style critiqued in the article
But consider good minimalist design like the Nike logo. When it's done well it can be amazingly timeless.
Huh? I see very few designs, products, or interfaces with honest “minimalism”.
the ideals of minimalism might be utilised at some stage of the design process, but most often they are quickly abandoned as complexity and scope increase.
I’m disappointed by the last decade of design.
the ideals of minimalism might be utilised at some stage of the design process, but most often they are quickly abandoned as complexity and scope increase.
I’m disappointed by the last decade of design.
It's been interesting, and a little concerning to see that the new popular UI design tools don't seem to be capable of much else beyond churning out 'flat' design.
It seems as if we will be relegated to a life of flat UIs that all feel the same for the foreseeable future, just due to vendor lock-in.
It seems as if we will be relegated to a life of flat UIs that all feel the same for the foreseeable future, just due to vendor lock-in.
I can't get into the article and don't want to mess with work-arounds. Did they mention form functionality? Properly placing the cursor in the first place you need to type in a form seems to be a lost art these days both on the web and in some desktop applications. I hate typing something in when the form comes up and no form field is active and having it be lost to the ether. Doubly so if it's a password field.
No, there is no actual mention of anything practical in a design sense; it's a long-form implication that, "design teaches minimalism, and minimalism contributes to whitespace, therefore designers using minimalism like a cargo cult equals increased production costs." So literally, "at what cost?"
There's some other points about designers being white, male, and in one case racist and pedophilic; those really don't seem to go anywhere meaningful.
There's some other points about designers being white, male, and in one case racist and pedophilic; those really don't seem to go anywhere meaningful.
Not that the article itself didn't already have some odd takes, to say the least, but I find it a bit ironic that they talk about design with seeming authority when that site has a very strange anti-feature where every few minutes eyeballs pop up on screen—sometimes over the text, making it more difficult to read—and you have to hover the pointer over them to make them go away. It was absolutely terrifying the first time, and quickly got annoying after that.
In hindsight, the eyeballs act like an unintentional warning not to bother reading. And that's despite my agreeing with the initial premise that these flat rebrandings are getting way too common.
In hindsight, the eyeballs act like an unintentional warning not to bother reading. And that's despite my agreeing with the initial premise that these flat rebrandings are getting way too common.
Stop injecting race into everything and start looking at the bigger picture. Big tech corporations that don't give a fuck about you are driving these design movements.